"There's a problem with this focus movie"

[laserphil]

Hi Dan and Elaine,

This is a difficult one to call. I would have preferred that other piece of aerogel to the top left had been in tact but after viewing this movie for considerable time I think I would click on the edge of the movie and not the "head". I would have missed the points as well because I have a bad habit of clicking when the track is still in focus and not continuing to the bottom of the focus bars.

With tracks like these I try to watch which way the "in focus point" moves as I scan down the focus bars. In this case as Elaine said it looks very even. The only other point I would make is that to me the "head" looks more like a hole than a particle.

To answer your question Dan yes the "where to click co-ordinates" are closer to the deepest point in my opinion.

[fjgiie]

Here is a movie that shows more of Elaine's movie. Think it is a mirror image though.

922265V1

One other thing the movie above shows:
It is out of focus where you click. That is OK and covered in the tutorial. I always get the track in focus if I can and then click it. No need to go to bottom focus just to throw a track out of focus or make it disappear.

f

[fjgiie]

The coordinates put this movie off the field of view.
4986423V1


Movie coordinates located closer to the middle of this long track, should be bottom left corner for lowest point.
8437649V1

thanks,

f

[laserphil]

HiFjgiie,

Your 8437649V1 is the inverse of my 9913600V1 that I posted on Aug 13. Seems that the power movies are just different orientations and magnifications of a few select tracks. I was under the impression that they were all different focus movies with the tracks digitally inserted.

By the way how do you create the url shortcut to a movie with just the movie number?

[fjgiie]

... By the way how do you create the url shortcut to a movie with just the movie number?

Hi laserphil,
I believe if you quote my post you can see the phpBB code, but I will write it here for you also.

To link something in phpBB use    url=   and to link a movie the code looks like this:

Code: Select all

[url=http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/powermissedviewer.php?movie_vm=4986423V1&theX=49&theY=402]4986423V1[/url]

In words it is the left bracket, then   url=   then the long url for the movie followed by the right bracket.
After the right bracket comes the movie number or what ever name you want to show as the link.
After the link name comes the closing tag which is    [/url]
There can be no spaces anywhere in the code, spaces only allowed in the displayed name or movie number.
For fun you can let the movie number be an image, so you can click on the image and get the focus movie.

When you are making a post, look right below the smileys.
Click on the blue BBCode is ON for more than you need.

[jsmaje]

I’ve seen this strange double-track power movie in different orientations many times and always, as today, been stung by clicking in the ’wrong’ place or on 'No Track'. I’m sure another version of it has been reported before, though can’t find reference via the forum search facility to this particular VM number: 3758179V1

According to the ‘missed power movie’ red-bar coordinates I was presented with at the time, the team's coordinates were half-way between the supposed tracks, where in fact I can see nothing (url provided: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... 3&theY=132):



Even stranger is that, having taken the precaution to preview this post before submitting it, on checking the above movie link I was presented with the same movie, but with quite different coordinates and Y bars missing, perhaps because a Y-coord of 402 is well outside the frame! (url provided: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... 9&theY=402):



What do other dusters see using those links?

It was received wisdom in previous phases that the chances of two tracks appearing in the same frame were virtually zero anyway, let alone two identical-looking tracks like this in alignment, also atypical regarding their 'bow-shock' features more commonly seen with ?micro-draught surface artefacts.

It seems that several things have gone wrong here, and I suggest all versions of this movie be withdrawn immediately and the issues investigated.
John

[caprarom]

John, this "double exposure" actually did come up in the beta testing, but was not purged for whatever reason. In my experience, if you click on the "first" feature and ignore the leading one, you should be marked correct. Of course, the first time I encountered it I guessed wrongly.

Mike

[DanZ]

The coordinates put this movie off the field of view.
4986423V1


Movie coordinates located closer to the middle of this long track, should be bottom left corner for lowest point.
8437649V1

thanks,

f

Both reported!

dz

[DanZ]

It seems that several things have gone wrong here, and I suggest all versions of this movie be withdrawn immediately and the issues investigated. John

It's been reported with various ID numbers already. I'll be sure to report these, and see if I can't find out what its true nature is.

Thanks,

Dan

[DanZ]

John, this "double exposure" actually did come up in the beta testing, but was not purged for whatever reason. In my experience, if you click on the "first" feature and ignore the leading one, you should be marked correct. Of course, the first time I encountered it I guessed wrongly. Mike

I seem to recall clicking right in the middle of them did the trick. Nevertheless, they will be reported, and perhaps removed altogether. I will definitely report back.

Dan

[greuti]

3188785V1 (greuti's coord.) Looks like the track appears above the surface.

8569028V1 That's impossible, isn't it. I guess this track looks mostly misplaced.

Edited: The same track just perfectly placed (or is it the original?) 5687961V1

[jsmaje]

Bad coordinates: 9357982V1

Further comments:
Apologies if this or versions of it have been reported before but, as with others, I can’t find it via the forum search facility under that particular number.
If so, I’m beginning to wonder if it may be because the search facility doesn’t always pick up on a movie when a whole address-bar link has been posted, which the forum program often seems to abbreviate on publication with a series of dots in the middle that in fact then obscures the pertinent movie number (at least with my current OS & browser).

My suggestion is that the team make it official that everyone should use the only-so-slightly-longer option of posting a movie link as full web address[/i]]movie number alone as used above, which results in a more compact, explicit, and I suspect searchable reference.

It might also help cut down on any personal angst that one may be alone with a particular movie issue, stem redundant postings and possible overload of moans to the team such as this!

John

[fjgiie]

Hi John,
There were no coordinates listed in your post for movie 9357982V1 so I am taking a chance here.

That movie is a very difficult one that I have had similar movies many times in Phase 4. The track is located at X=332 and Y=374 which straddles the bottom edge.
Track is where the red dot is in this image with the green arrow pointing to it, I think.


Here is a similar track:
7487044V1
I clicked 45° down to the left where the arrowhead is pointing on the dot and got points.

[jsmaje]

Thanks fjgiie, but I thought the track in 9357982V1 was that fairly clear 'Heidelberg'-type feature (plus a small parallel darker companion - what could that be?) at around 300/350, rather than your subtle arrowed dot on the edge. Sorry, I didn't keep the 'official' coordinates, but was given a 'miss' at any rate.

I'm also a little puzzled: while 7487044V1 certainly does show the same feature plus companion at a similar size but different orientation around 420/300, why indicate that dot in the first (& which I don't see in the second) rather than the shared 'H-type' track?

John

[greuti]

John, what you call "Heidelberg-type feature" is the entry hole/first part of this track - and Fred's dot the remaining particle at the end. It's a real track from the journey and (iirc) the middle part is also hardly visible in original size.